Talk:3rd Battalion, 6th Marines

Teufelhunden?

It is to be doubted that Germans gave this nickname, since Germans usually have at least a rudimentary grasp of German grammar, and the plural of "Hund", "dog", is not "Hunden", but "Hunde". "Hunden" would be the Dative case. There is a similar German word, "Teufelskerl" "Kerl" meaning something like "guy", "fellow", "lad". It shows, however, another problem: It uses "Teufel" in the genitive case, "Teufels". So, if anything, it would have to be "Teufelshunde". Yet this is not how the Marines themselves use the word -and it is in German Google only findable in connections with either the Marines or some computer games where it probably is a re-translation from the english. It is indeed not a common German expression -a German is more likely to speak of a "Höllenhund", a "hellhound". The term "Teufelshund" -not "Teufel Hund" or "TeufelHunden" etc.- exists, but only in a handful of texts and not in day-to-day language. Cf. also [1] --OliverH 12:09, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2606:A000:140A:497:4161:2CFD:609B:13DD (talk) 13:48, 24 December 2019 (UTC) 

• Thanks for the German lesson but this pops up every once in awhile and all I will say is yes it is misspelled and yes it is their nickname. Don't ask we why it just is that way. Maybe they heard it wrong. --Looper5920 12:13, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Could it possibly be the difference between low german and high german and Standard german spelling. Standard is how things were spelt back then and now but there were 5 distinct local dialects and spelling variations back then sooo.

Hey Looper5920, OliverH likes to parade his vast knowledge without ever really doing anything except criticizing other editors efforts. This is an excellent example. Despite his lofty tone and german lesson, the fact is that the nickname is what it is - and no droning of his can change it. I read the same origin the article claims, and no lofty lesson in german will change it. Stillstudying 15:32, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

It might be that you don't realize this, but the goal of an encyclopedia is to provide knowledge. Knowledge that has been verified. Criticism is an integral part of the knowledge review process, but someone like you, who accuses others of personal attacks because they dare not accept something on a say-so basis probably doesn't understand that. The fact is that the nickname is what it is, and contrary to your claims, I never suggested anything else. The point is that the question how it came to be what it is is still open. The fact that you read something doesn't mean it is true. And the fact that you imply so means you have some issues with WP:RS --OliverH 18:02, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

And it also might be, that despite your vaunted intellect and degrees, that you cannot seem to grasp that in an encyclopedia, people search for the information in the article. Your habit is not to edit the article, which would add to the sum of the knowledge wikipedia offers through the hard work of it's editors, but rather to lecture the editors who write the articles on the talk page. In this article, instead of adding a section of "Origin of the Nickname" and then proffering the information on the German translation not supporting the nickname, you came to the talk page, and essentially lectured the editor who wrote the article. You cannot seem to grasp that adds absolutely nothing to the article, adds nothing to the knowledge the average reader will obtain from the article, but just lectures away! As to following wikipedia rules, you just edited out of your talk page yet another warning on your lack of civility - a very serious violation of the rules, Tom Harrison Oliver edited your warning to him on his lack of civility off his talk page. This isn't the first time he has edited off warnings from admins. Tom - is there anything that can be done about this editor? As noted above, he does not add to the articles, he merely attacks the editors who write the articles. When you warn him, he erases the warnings. Can't something be done? Stillstudying 13:12, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Copyright problem removed

Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: https://taskandpurpose.com/timeline-history-women-us-military. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.)

For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, and, if allowed under fair use, may copy sentences and phrases, provided they are included in quotation marks and referenced properly. The material may also be rewritten, providing it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Therefore, such paraphrased portions must provide their source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. A-NEUN ⦾TALK⦾ 09:53, 23 December 2019 (UTC)